Dividing Maharashtra: Vidarbha=Serbia, Konkan=Cuba

The gross district domestic product (GDDP) of the five districts that form Amravati region (Rs.51,947 crore), a part of backward Vidarbha, was Maharashtra’s lowest in 2013-14; yet it was more than Jammu and Kashmir (Rs.45,847 crore) in the same year.

The GDP of Marathwada (Rs.83,765 crore), a region of eight drought-prone districts, in 2013-14 was more than Uttarakhand (Rs 70,926 crore)

With such powerful regional economies – even in its backward areas – Maharashtra is India’s most prosperous state with a gross state domestic product (GSDP) of $148.2 billion (at constant 2004-05 prices), almost equal to that of Pakistan ($150 billion at constant 2005 prices).

Yet, Maharashtra’s overall economic power hides vast disparities. It has some of India’s poorest people, four of its 36 districts are among India’s 106 most backward, and some districts, such as rural Thane on the doorstep of rich Mumbai, have areas where 30 percent (in 2009, the last available data) children suffer malnutrition, comparable with Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura (2009 data).

So, an old debate over dividing Maharashtra – India’s second most populous state with a population of 112 million-was re-energised last week when senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leader M.G. Vaidya said division would make the state more governable.

Vaidya supported former Maharashtra advocate general Shrihari Aney, who suggested that the people of Marathwada should get their own state. For those comments, Aney was asked to quit by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis.

Konkan’s economy would be fourth, Marathwada 22nd among states

If we arrange the five regions of Maharashtra – Konkan, Pune, Nashik, Marathwada and Vidarbha – along with 28 remaining states of India, Konkan would rank fourth in the list.

As a state, Konkan would be richer than West Bengal, Telangana and Rajasthan and rank alongside countries like Cuba and have a GDP more than neighbouring Sri Lanka.

Profile: The Konkan region, along the western coast, is Maharashtra’s most populous and prosperous region. The region’s capital, Mumbai – home to India’s financial, banking and entertainment industries – is the state’s richest district. Neighbouring Thane district has one of India’s highest per capita incomes. The region is known for its Alphonso mangoes and costal fisheries.

As a state, Vidarbha would be poorer than Odisha and Punjab and rank alongside Cameroon, Serbia and Tanzania.

Profile: Maharashtra’s eastern region achieved national infamy for suicides, mostly by cotton farmers. Formerly the princely state of Berar, Vidarbha is largely agrarian, with cotton, jowar, soybean and pulses its main farm output. Yavatmal, Gadchiroli and Chandrapur are among India’s most backward districts, large swathes of areas riven by Maoist insurgency.

As a state, Marathwada would be poorer than Chhattisgarh and Assam, and would rank alongside Bosnia, Afghanistan and Paraguay.

Profile: The region is known for its drought, falling as it does in Maharashtra’s rain-shadow area. It is the most underdeveloped area in the state after Vidarbha. Marathwada also has the second-highest number of farmers’ suicides after Vidarbha.

Why smaller states do better

Smaller states do better than bigger states, IndiaSpend reported previously, analysing the progress of breakaway states.

Carving out smaller states from larger states help better governance because it allows “de-averaging” both the problem and solution, which means allowing administrators to get a true picture of regions instead of an average that hides problems, Nikhil Ojha of Bain and Co, a consultancy, wrote in his Mint column.

For instance, Uttarakhand is among India’s top six relatively developed states; its parent state, Uttar Pradesh, among India’s least developed, according to a 2013 panel report by Raghuram Rajan, now the Reserve Bank of India governor.

Odisha topped as the least developed state, followed by Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.

Goa was the most relatively developed state, followed by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Note: All population figures are from the 2011 census. The GDP figures are for 2013-14, the base year for all economic comparisons.